Crops, browse and pollinators in Africa an initial stock taking

Prévia do material em texto

Crops, Browse and 
Pollinators in Africa 
An Initial Stock-taking
produced by the 
African Pollinators Initiative
This publication has been supported by the FAO Netherlands Partnership 
Programme and the Government of Norway
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 
2007
page ii
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
page iii
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
FIRST PUBLISHED IN 2003 BY THE AFRICAN POLLINATOR INITIATIVE SECRETARIAT
ENVIRONMENT LIAISON CENTRE INTERNATIONAL
P.O. BOX 72461, NAIROBI, KENYA
TEL: +254 20 576119
FAX: +254 20 576125
PLANT PROTECTION RESEARCH INSTITUTE
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
PRIVATE BAG X134
PRETORIA, 0001, SOUTH AFRICA
TEL: +27 12 323-8540
FAX: +27 12 325-6998
EMAIL: EardleyC@arc.agric.za
NATIONAL MUSEUMS OF KENYA
DEPARTMENT OF INVERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY
P.O. BOX 40658, NAIROBI, KENYA
TEL: +254 20 374-2445
FAX: +254 20 374-4833
EMAIL: eafrinet@africaonline.co.ke
DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST
CAPE COAST, GHANA
TEL: +233 42 31191
FAX: +233 42 32446
EMAIL: pkwapong@yahoo.com
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE OF INSECT PHYSIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY
P.O. BOX 30772, NAIROBI, KENYA
TEL: +254 20 861680
FAX: +254 20 861690
EMAIL: igordon@icipe.org 
 
INSECT COMMITTEE OF NATURE KENYA
The East Africa Natural History Society
P.O.Box 44486 GPO 00100
NAIROBI, Kenya
Email: dinojmv@oeb.harvard.edu
Republished in 2007, with assistance from FAO and Nature Kenya
page iv
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
List of Contributors
Connal Eardley: Agricultural Research Council, Plant Protection Research Institute (ARC-PPRI), Private 
Bag X134, Pretoria, Queenswood, 0121, South Africa, Fax (+27 12) 304 9578 / 325 6998. EMAIL: EardleyC@
arc.agric.za
Barbara Gemmill-Herren: Food and Agriculture Organization. Vialle delle termedi caracalla, Roma, 0153, 
Itary. Tel: +390657056835. barbara.Herren@fao.org
Mary Gikungu, Invertebrate Zoology Department, National Museums of Kenya (NMK), P.O. Box 40658, 
Nairobi, Kenya. Tel/Fax (254 2) 3742 445 / 3744 833., mgikungu@yahoo.com
Rachel Kagoiya: Invertebrate Zoology Department, National Museums of Kenya (NMK), P.O. Box 40658, 
Nairobi, Kenya. Tel/Fax (254 2) 3742 445 / 3744 833. eafrinet@africaonline.co.ke
Wanja Kinuthia: Invertebrate Zoology Department, National Museums of Kenya (NMK), P.O. Box 40658, 
Nairobi, Kenya. Tel/Fax (254 2) 3742 445 / 3744 833. eafrinet@africaonline.co.ke
Peter Kwapong: Department of Entomology and Wildlife, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana. Tel/ 
Fax +233 42 31191/32095 pkwapong@yahoo.com
Dino Martins: Insect Committee of Nature Kenya,The East Africa Natural History Society 
P.O.Box 44486 GPO 00100, NAIROBI, Kenya. dinojmv@oeb.harvard.edu
Grace Njoroge: Jomo Kenyatta University of Agricultural Technology, Nairobi, Kenya, 
gnjerinjoroge@hotmail.com
Laban Njoroge: Invertebrate Zoology Department, National Museums of Kenya (NMK), P.O. Box 40658, 
Nairobi, Kenya. Tel/Fax (254 2) 3742 445 / 3744 833. eafrinet@africaonline.co.ke 
Geoff Tribe: ARC-PPRI, Private Bag x5017, Stellenbosch, 7559, South Africa Tel/Fax (+27 21) 8874690 / 8833285, 
tribeg@arc.agric.za
page v
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
Table of Contents
List of Contributors iv
List of Figures and Titles vi
Frontpiece: Pollinators of Selected Crops in Africa vii
Preface viii
Summary of Lessons Learned ix
Introduction 1
Identifying the State of Knowledge 2
 Farmers’ Knowledge in Kenya 2
 Rachel Kagoiya
 Farmers’ and Extensionists Knowledge in Ghana 2
 Peter Kwapong
 Research and Civil Society Organisations: Knowledge of Pollination 3
 Dino Martins
 In the Literature 4
 Barbara Gemmill -Herren 
Initial Assessments and Lessons Learned 11
 Methods and Approaches 11
 Fruit Crops 14
 Deciduous fruit in South Africa: 14
 Geoff Tribe
 Watermelon in Kenya 20 
 Grace Njoroge, Laban Njoroge, and Barbara Gemmill
 Mango in Ghana 22
 Peter Kwapong and Mary Botchey
 Papaya in Kenya 24
 Dino Martins
 Avocado in Kenya 27
 Wanja Kinuthia and Laban Njoroge
 NUT CROPS 29
 Cashew in Ghana 29
 Peter Kwapong
 OIL CROPS 31
 Coconut in Ghana 31
 Peter Kwapong
 Groundut in Ghana 33
 Peter Kwapong and Wisdom Hordzi 
 Oil Palm in Ghana 35
 Peter Kwapong and Benjamin Mensah
 BROWSE 37
 Acacia Pods in Kenya 37
 Dino Martins
 Indigofera in Kenya 43
 Barbara Gemmill-Herren
 BEVERAGE AND STIMULANT CROPS 45
 Coffee in Kenya 45
 Wanja Kinuthia, Barbara Gemmill-Herren and Laban Njoroge 
 
Summary and Conclusion 51
Acknowledgements 53
Picture Credits 53 
References Cited 54
page vi
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
Frontpiece: Pollinators of Selected Crops in Africa vii
Figure 1: Subfields covered in African pollination literature 4
Figure 2: Types of research covered in African pollination literature 4
Figure 3: Interview bouquets 11
Figure 4: Peach trees in South Africa 14
Figure 5: Non-Apis visitation patterns to watermelon, Kenya 20
Figure 6: Male flowers, Watermelon 20
Figure 7: Infloresence and immature fruits of mangoes 22
Figure 8: Male flower of Papaya 24
Figure 9: Female flower of Papaya 24
Figure 10: Herse convolvuli (with tongue extended)- one of the 
 hawkmoths pollinating Papaya 24
Figure 11. Cashew flowers and young fruit 29
Figure 12. Female Coconut Flowers 31
Figure 13. Groundnut in flower with flower beetle feeding on petals 33
Figure 14. Female inflorescence, Oil Palm 35
Figure 15. Male inflorescence, Oil Palm 35
Figure 16. Percentage types of floral visitors to Acacia tortilis, Kerio Valley 37
Figure 17. Acacia flowers 37
Figure 18. Percentage types of floral visitors to Acacia tortilis, 
 close to bomas 38
Figure 19. Percentage types of floral visitors to Acacia tortilis, 
 natural vegetation site 38
Figure 20. Indigofera blossoms 43
Figure 21. Stingless bee nest entry 43
Figure 22. Honeybees on Coffee 46
Figure 23. Bagged Coffee inflorescences 46
Figure 24. Coffee plantation and riparian forest, with wild honeybee hives 46
Figure 25. Percentage types of floral visitors to coffee 47
Figure 26. Average number of flowers visited by taxa 47
Table 1. Commodities dependent on pollination in Africa 6
Table 2. Number of Blossums visited by a single honeybee in five minutes 15
Table 3. Floral visitor to orchard tree species at Bien Donne 16
Table 4. Floral visitors to Watermelon, Kenya 21
Table 5. Floral visitors to Mango, Ghana 23
Table 6. Floral visitors to Papaya, Kenya 25
Table 7. Floral visitors to Avocado in Gachie village, 
 Kiambu District, Kenya 28
Table 8. Floral visitors to Cashew, Ghana 30
Table 9. Floral visitors to Coconut , Ghana 32
Table 10. Floral visitors to Groundnut (peanut), Ghana 34
Table 11. Floral visitors to Oil Palm, Ghana 36
Table 12. Ranking of effectiveness- Acacia visitors 38
Table.13. Behaviour of floral visitors on Acacia tortilis blossoms 40
Table 14. Major bee visitors to Indigofera spp. 44
Table 15. Other bees visiting coffee flowers 48
Table 16. Insects besides bees visiting coffee 49
List of Tables and Figures 
page vii
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
Frontpiece: 
* note that in none of the systems studied did vertebrate pollinators play a documented role.
page viii
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
Preface
When the Fifth Conference of the Parties to the Convention Biological Diversity established an International 
Initiative for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Pollinators (also known as the International Pollinators 
Initiative-IPI) in 2000 (COP decision V/5, section II), FAO was requested to facilitate and co-ordinate the 
Initiative in close co-operation with other relevant organisations. A Plan of Action for the IPI was adopted 
at COP 6 (decision VI/5), providingan overall structure to the initiative, with four elements of assessment, 
adaptive management, capacity building and mainstreaming. 
FAO, through the FAO/Netherlands Partnership Programme, supported the initial establishment of a regional 
African Pollinator Initiative, the development and publication of its Plan of Action in 2003, and an initial 
stocktaking of pollinator-dependent crops and browse plants in Africa. The stocktaking document has only 
been available in electronic form; support from the Government of Norway has permitted its publication in 
2007.
We hope that the information contained in this stocktaking document will inspire others to make assessments 
of pollination services in their countries or regions as appropriate. We would encourage those that do so to 
share these with FAO for wider dissemination, through the following address: pollination@fao.org. 
Linda Collette
FAO Responsible Officer for the IPI
Rome, Italy
page ix
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
Lessons learned . . . 
 in South African pollination assessments 
Honeybees were essential as pollinators of the five orchard crops; some exotic weed species 
were beneficial to indigenous pollinators especially honeybees in supplying nectar and pollen; 
but the greatest variety and numbers of pollinator species were present on indigenous flower-
ing plants. 
 
Lessons learned . . . 
 in Ghanian pollination assessments 
In Ghana, farmers would appreciate more extension information on pollination services.
In a rapid assessment of crop pollination, it was found that even though honeybees visit man-
gos early in the morning, the main pollinators of mango seem to be various fly species, which 
remain on the little flowers most of the day.� Cashew had wider species diversity of pollinators, 
while for oil palm beetles are the main pollinators.� The main pollinator of Coconut are sting-
less bees, some wasps and other small bees. Flower visitors to groundut were noted, including 
halictid bees
Lessons learned . . . 
 in Kenyan pollination assessments 
In Kenya, it was found that farmers’ knowledge of pollination is limited: many farmers lump 
pollinators together with insect pests, and do not explicitly manage to conserve them, although 
pollinators may contribute substantially to yields at no cost to the farmer. Most researchers 
working on projects related to pollination are addresssing bee-keeping, or bee taxonomy. Other 
aspects of pollination services are not being addressed.
In a rapid assessment of crop pollination needs, it was noted that while bees that nest in cavi-
ties are often considered the most manageable, non-honeybee pollinators of watermelon made 
use of on-farm conditions to nest in the field soil. Conditions promoting them to nest could be 
studied and utilised to increase watermelon pollination. Papaya needs pollinators able to fly long 
distances between scattered trees with separate male and female blossoms. Recommendations 
for conserving the hawkmoths that pollinate papaya effectively are needed. Although avocado 
is an exotic tropical fruit to Kenya, its reproduction has adapted well to a diverse range of local 
pollinators. Coffee producers do not seem to be aware that pollination can increase yields, and 
are removing habitat on farm for wild bee populations.
Browse pollinators are important, but often overlooked. Most of the important Acacia pollina-
tors nest in dead wood, making room for low-tech pollination management in that farmers that 
depend on this resource should not denude the areas of dead wood. Many crop and browse 
pollinator species could only be identified to genera. This severely limits our ability to assess 
whether they are shared amongst several crops, or specific to individual crops.
Summary of Lessons Learned
page 1
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
Introduction
Pollination is an ecosystem service that is key to food security. Pollinators are essential for many fruit 
and vegetable crops. In agriculture, especially amongst pollen-limited crops, promoting pollination 
services is a means of increasing productivity without resorting to expensive agricultural inputs of 
pesticides or herbicides. Indeed, pollination services are most likely underpinning productivity in 
many crops without farmers even recognising it, so long as habitat and alternative pollinator forage 
are readily available as they often are in smallholder farming systems. 
By developing larger and larger fields and landscapes for agriculture, we remove the habitat that pol-
linators may need. Increasing dependence on pesticides for pest control is also highly detrimental to 
beneficial insects such as pollinators, unless planned and undertken with extreme care. Pollination 
is a service nature provides that we have tended to take for granted, and that we often do little to 
encourage until we start to lose it. As wild ecosystems are increasingly converted to more human-
dominated uses to meet the compelling demands of food security, it is critical for us to understand 
what pollination services are most important for food security, and how we can preserve pollinator 
services in sustainable farming systems. 
A crop’s pollinator dependence differs between species, including between crops and crop varieties. 
Some plants must be cross-pollinated, others do not need pollinators but produce better fruit and 
seed if pollinated, and a number are strictly self-pollinated. Further, plants differ in their pollina-
tor-type requirements; some require specific pollinators while others are pollinated by a variety of 
visitors, and many are wind pollinated. Effective pollinators of the same crop may vary from one site 
to another. Specific knowledge on pollinator dependence and types is important for agriculture and 
biodiversity (including agro-biodiversity) conservation. With this objective, researchers in Ghana, 
Kenya and South Africa were supported by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation 
in 2003 to undertake an initial assessment of pollination needs and gaps in knowledge of the key 
pollinators of a few crops, and indigenous plants used by people or livestock (Acacia and Indigofera), 
in their respective countries. This assessment included both literature reviews and field observation; 
and is on-going. The long-term aim of assessments is to identify the key pollinators and prioritize 
vulnerable pollination systems, in particular those in which explicit pollinator management practices 
can have the most beneficial impacts. As the African Pollinator Initiative plan of action has specified, 
methodologies were used that must give results that are scientifically justifiable, and comparable.
page 2
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
 Identifying the State of Knowledge: 
 Farmer’s Knowledge in Kenya
Rachel Kagoiya
Farmers around the world understand better than most of the public that good environmental health 
is fundamental to their sustainable existence, but often in a holistic way that may not include an 
in-depth understanding of the role of pollination. The importance of ecosystem services will not 
be ‘mainstreamed’ or become considered as a part of accepted farming practice unless the farming 
community understands explicitly what it is and how it works. A good example of this is pollination 
services. Globally, within the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and regionally, 
within the African Pollinator Initiative, the contribution of pollinators for increasing genetic diversity, 
adaptation, seed set or crop production and crop quality, and natural regeneration of wild species has 
been recognised, and the need to conserve pollinators has been stressed. Yet the public’s, including 
farmers’, knowledge of the role of pollinators, remains poor.Surveys carried out amongst farmers 
in central Kenya highlighted the fact that many farmers lump pollinators together with insect pests, 
and do not explicitly manage to conserve them, although pollinators may substantially contribute 
to yields at no direct cost to the farmer. Ecosystem services such as pollination and soil biodiver-
sity are aspects of the environment that relate closely to human livelihoods, and may convince the 
public that biodiversity is not only wild animals that may damage their crops, but also creatures that 
live on their farms and help to sustain crop production. Further public awareness programmes on 
ecosystem services are merited.
 Farmers’ and Agricultural Extension Agents’ Knowledge in Ghana
Peter Kwapong
In Ghana, interviews with farmers, extension agents, and agricultural lecturers indicated that all of 
these groups are aware of pollination and pollinators, to varying degrees. All respondents agreed 
that pollination is important in agriculture and that absence of pollination will not result in fruit and 
seed formation. Only a few believed that plants can reproduce vegetatively. Respondents (83%) 
think that crop yield increases when flowers are sufficiently pollinated. But most people sampled 
(93%) think that humans have a major role to play in ensuring adequate pollination and only a few 
understood that it is a natural ecosystem service that should be allowed to go on unaided.
Farmers had limited knowledge on pollination and pollinators. With respect to pollinators, most of 
the farmers said they left any insect found on plants during flowering not because they really un-
derstand their role but they think bees provide honey for medicinal purposes and also form part of 
God’s creation and must be left alone. A few farmers however claim that they sprayed bees found on 
their crops for fear of attack. In order to promote pollination services some of the respondents sug-
gested natural habitat should not be destroyed through bush burning, deforestation and insecticide 
spraying. Some people think that pollinator friendly type of farming should be adopted to protect 
pollinators from physical, chemical and biological enemies.
Extension agents had more knowledge on pollination: for example, 75% of Agricultural agents 
thought that pollinators need to be protected from sprays compared to 31% of farmers who think 
the same.
page 3
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
 But such information was not being disseminated: farmers felt that the Ministry of Agriculture had 
not been proactive in promoting the awareness and occurence of pollination and the need to protect 
the service. In terms of help to farmers, 49% of the agents think that they have created the pollinator 
awareness to farmers. From the farmers’ point of view, 73.7% said the have had no help from the 
Ministry of Agriculture on the subject whilst 26.3 said they have received such help (awarenesss). 
The agents (75%) think that the Ministry has no policy to promote the awareness of pollination and 
pollinators in crop production.
 
 Civil Society and Research Organisations: Knowledge of Pollination
 Dino Martins
A survey of a biodiversity conservationists and practitioners, researchers and non-governmental or-
ganisations (NGOs) in Kenya was carried out to assess the level of knowledge of pollination services. 
Questionnaires were sent to all members of the African Pollinator Initiative. Most respondents were 
scientists, or technicians working for scientific institutions, and to a lesser extent, from conservation 
civil society organisations. 
Organisations involved in conservation programmes carried out their work through community 
projects, public education and awareness and ecosystem management initiatives. Only two respon-
dents identified with species-focused programmes. This highlights an important trend towards a 
community and public awareness focus in terms of the conservation message, and an overwhelming 
endorsement of the ecosystem approach to management practice. This is important information for 
the planning of pollination-related activities and projects.
Most of the respondents working in science and conservation have a basic knowledge of pollina-
tion as the process that transfers pollen and results in fertilization. People were also aware that pol-
lination requires an agent, but only two respondents identified these in this question as including 
insects. While basic knowledge of what pollination is, as a process, is widespread, fewer people are 
aware that many different organisms, and insects in particular, are important pollinators. Most or-
ganisations and individuals indicated that pollination or pollinators were included in some form or 
aspect of their progammes. But the means of addressing pollination was limited to: bee keeping or 
taxonomy. For example, one organisation encourages farmers to grow flower-rich crops, including 
sunflower and fodder trees to boost honey production. Education was seen as the main means to 
incorporate knowledge on pollination and pollinators into agriculture and biodiversity conservation 
projects. No organistion promoted any direct conservation needs and/or practices directly related to 
pollinators. This is one area where much work can be done by API, in raising real awareness among 
conservation and biodiversity-related practitioners.
Respondents identified the two most important training needs as bee/pollinator conservation (38%) 
and pollination ecology/assessment (38%). Seventy percent of respondents felt that their knowledge 
of pollination was only average, and 10% felt it was low. There is clear awareness of the need for 
targeted education and awareness-raising among key groups- a need that API should seek to fill.
page 4
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
 The above responses highlight the need for a lot of groundwork on pollinator awareness among 
natural biodiversity practitioners and conservationists. Knowledge on the diversity of pollinators 
and range of pollination systems needs to be improved. API has a real role to play in this, through 
the dissemination of existing studies and building links with institutions that can go on to develop 
further pollination-related programmes.
 Identifying the State of Knowledge In the Literature
Barbara Gemmill-Herren
The literature covering pollination ecology in Africa is not new: articles were published as long ago as 
1890 in South Africa, on the pollination of bananas, strelizias and Traveler’s palm. (Scott-Elliot 1890) 
But it is, compared to other continents, fairly sparse and not with an applied aspect. As part of a joint 
publication of the African Pollinator Initiative, a comprehensive literature review was carried out, com-
piling all known literature references to pollination studies in Africa (Rodger, Balkwill and Gemmill 
2004). The review was published in a special issue of the International Journal of Tropical Insect Sci-
ence, dedicated to the African Pollinator Initiative. The bibliography is intended for widespread use by 
those practitioners and research organizations contemplating pollination research in Africa. It will be 
continually updated and maintained 
as a searchable database on the API 
website, currently hosted by PPRI in 
South Africa at (http://www.arc.agric.
za/home.asp?pid=3493) 
The review found that of 355 ar-
ticles (now up to 400, with further 
searches and publications) focused 
on different aspects of pollination 
in Africa, the vast majority have fo-
cused on the evolutionary aspects of 
pollination syndromes and breeding 
systems (Figure 1). Less than one-
fifth (72) addressed pollination in 
agricultural systems, or with specific 
crops. Research in Africa hasiden-
tified interesting mutualisms, such 
as that between figs and fig wasps 
and bats and various trees (Baijnath 
et al., 1983, Compton 1990, Galil 
and Esikovitch 1960). Yet applied, 
agricultural aspects of pollination 
have received much less attention, 
and many of these studies remain in 
the “grey literature”, not easily trace-
able or accessible to practitioners in 
the field. FIGURES 1 AND 2.
page 5
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
Out of all the papers identified, only 93 included manipulative (experimental) work (Fig. 2). Pollina-
tion biology is a field that lends itself readily to short-term, reasonably inexpensive manipulation 
experiments that can put observations and hypotheses to a test. There is scope for considerably more 
hypothesis testing and deductive science than has been conducted on the continent in pollination 
studies up until now.
Given the paucity of specific information linking pollination services with crop production in Africa, 
people wanting to know about pollination needs in Africa will turn to the standard reference volumes 
on pollination first. To assist with this, and to identify the prominent gaps in knowledge with respect 
to African crops, the literature review also included the development of a table featuring the impor-
tant commercial commodities within Africa known to benefit from animal vectors for pollination, 
and where information on these can be found in these reference volumes this is indicated. As it is 
increasingly recognised that pollination ecology is highly site-specific, and local, native pollinators 
should be promoted over exotic solutions, we have added an additional column noting if and how 
many pollination studies for a particular commodity have been carried out in Africa (Table 1). This 
may help us to priortise future studies, to fill in the obvious gaps.
page 6
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
 Table 1. Commodity Free Crane McGregor Known Studies 
 1996 & 1976 Pollinator(s) conducted 
 pages Walker from within 
 1984 literature Africa
 pages 
 
Grain legumes
 
 Bambara groundnut, Self pollinated and self fertile 
 Voandzeia subterranea 342-3 73 - ants noted pollinating in Ghana 2
 
 Broad beans, 
 Vicia faba var. major 298 23 /chap4/broad.html Self and bees 1
 
 Common (field) bean, 
Vicia faba var. minor 298 23 /chap4/broad.html Self and bees 1
Cowpea, Vigna unguiculata 341-2 107 /chap4/cow.html Self and bees 2
Lima bean, Phaseolus lunatus 269-70 22 /chap4/lima.html Self and bees 0
Pigeon pea, Cajanus cajanus 317-20 107 /chap4/pig.html Probably self and bees 
 but not well known 2
 
Vegetables 
Amaranth, Amaranthus spp. - - - Not known 0
Aubergine/eggplant, Bees other than 
Solanum melongena 503-4 62 /chap6/eggplant.html honeybees 0
 
Chayote, Sechium edule - 40 /chap6/chayote.html Not known but 
 insects are necessary 0
Cucumber, Cucumis sativus 196-201 58 /chap6/cucumber.html Bees 0
Hot/sweet pepper, Self and bees- 
Capsicum frutescens/annum 499-500 110 /chap6/pepper.html but not well known 0
Karela, Momordica charantia 208 - /chap6/balsam.html Bees and beetles 0
Okra, 352-4 100 /chap6/okra.html Self, bees, wasps, 
Abelmoschus esculentus flies, beetles, birds? 0
Oyster nut. Telfairia pedata - - - Not known 0
French beans,
Phaseolus vulgaris 270 24 /chap4/beans.html Self and bees 0
Field peas, Pisum sativum 338-9 107 - Self and bees 0
Pumpkin, squash, marrow, 
Cucurbita 203-7 69 /chap6/pumpkin.html Bees 0
Tomato, 
Lycopersicon esculentum 492-8 137 /chap6/tomato.html Self and large bees 0
page 7
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
 Commodity Free Crane McGregor Known Studies 
 1996 & 1976 Pollinator(s) conducted 
 pages Walker from within 
 1984 literature Africa
 pages
Fruit crops
Custard apple, cherimoya
Annona squamosa 129 40 /chap9/cherimoya.html beetles 0
Apple, Malus domestica 434-45 16 /chap5/apple.html Bees 0
Avocado, Persea americana 240-4 19 /chap5/avocado.html Bees, wasps, flies 1
Borassus palm, 
Borassus flabellifer - 32 - Not known 0
Breadfruit, Artocarpus altilis 372 33 - Not well known 0
Cape gooseberry 
Physalis peruviana 504 - - Not known 0
Carambola, Averrhoa carambola 391 35 /chap9/carambola.html Bees and other insects 0
Citrus, Citrus 479-85 44 /chap5/citrus.html Bees and other insects 2
Cherry, Prunus avium 431-66 41 /chap5/cherry.html Bees 0
Date palm, Phoenix dactylifera 401-2 61 /chap5/date.html Not known 0
Figs, Ficus carica 373-8 65 /chap5/fig.html Fig wasps 2
Guava, Psidium guajava 386 73 /chap7/guava.html Self, bees, other insects 0
Litchie, Litchi chinensis 487-8 88 /chap5/litchi.html Bees, flies, ants and wasps 1
Mango, Mangifera indica 124-8 90 /chap5/mango.html Not well understood 1
Marula, Sclerocarya birrea - - - Not known 0
Melon, Cucumis melo 190-6 92 /chap6/muskmelon.html Bees 0
Watermelon, Citrullus lanatus 201-3 93 /chap6/watermelon.html Bees 1
Natal Plum, Carissa grandiflora 131-2 98 - Not known 0
Papaya, Carica papaya 137-9 103 /chap5/papaya.html Hawkmoths, 
 skipper butterflies 3
Passion fruit, Passiflora edulis 408-9 104 /chap5/passionfruit.html Large bees 0
Peach, Prunus persica 431-66 108 /chap5/peach.html Self and bees 0
Pears, Pyrus communis 431-66 108 /chap5/pear.html Bees 0
Plum, Prunus spp. 431-66 113 /chap5/plum.html Bees 0
page 8
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
 Fruit crops, continued
 Commodity Free Crane McGregor Known Studies 
 1996 & 1976 Pollinator(s) conducted 
 pages Walker from within 
 1984 literature Africa
 pages
Strawberry, Fragaria x ananassa 425-30 130 /chap7/strawberry.html Bees 0
Tamarind, Tamarindus indica 340-1 134 - Not known in Africa 
 (Apis dorsata in 
 Asia) 0
Nut crops 
Cashew nut, Bees, flies
Anacardium occidentale 122-4 37 /chap5/cashew.html ants 1
Macadamia nut, Bees,
Macadamia integrifolia 418-20 89 /chap5/mac.html wasps, beetles 0
Oil Crops
 
Castor, Ricinis communis 226-7 38 - Wind and bees 1
Coconut, Cocos nucifera 52 52 /chap5/coconut.html Wind and bees 1
Groundnut, Arachis hypogaea 314-7 72 /chap3/peanut.html Self but bees and thrips 
 seen to increase production 
 in Congo 1
Niger seed, Guizotia abyssinica 149,161 98 /chap9/niger.html Bees but not 
 well known 1
Oil Palm, Elaeis guineensis 398-401 99 /chap5/oil.html Beetles 5
Safflower, Carthamus tinctorius 145-8 123 /chap9/safflower.html Self and bees 0
Sesame, Sesamum indicum 410-11 127 /chap9/sesame.html Self and bees 1
Shea,
 Butryospermum pardoxum - - - Not known 0
Soybean, Glycine max 325-9 27 /chap4/soy.html Self and bees 0
Sunflower, Helianthus annus - 132 /chap9/sun.html Bees and other insects 3
Beverage/stimulant crops 
 
Cacao, Ceratopogonid midges,
Theobroma cacao 504-14 51 /chap5/cacao.html thrips, ants 12
Cola nut, - 81 /chap7/kolanut.html Flies- 
Cola acuminata and nitida but not well known 1
Coffee, Coffea spp. 475-8 53 /chap7/coffee.html Self and bees 0
page 9
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
 Commodity Free Crane McGregor Known Studies 
 1996 & 1976 Pollinator(s) conducted 
 pages Walker from within 
 1984 iterature Africa
 pages
Fibre/container Crops 
Cotton, Gossypium spp. 354-9 55 /chap9/cotton.html Self, but bees 
 increase production 3
Bottle Gourd, Lagenaria siceria 207-8 68 /chap6/white.html Hawkmoths, bees, bats 0
Kapok, Ceiba petandra 134-5 128 - Bats, hawkmoths 1
Raffia palm, Raphia spp. - 117 - Not known 0
Forage Crops
 
Acacia tortilis pods - - - Bees other than honeybees,butterflies, wasps 1?
Desmodium - Not known 1
Egyptian clover, or berseem, 
Trifolium alexandrinum 271-97 30 /chap3/berseem.html Bees 7
Indigofera (browse in Africa) - - - Bees other than honeybees, 
 small butterflies 0
Stylosanthus - - Not known 0
Agroforestry crops 
Calliandra calthyrsus - 35 - Bees 0
Gliricidium sepium - - - Not known 0
Grevillea robusta - 128 - Not known 0
Leucaena leucophala and hybrids - - - Not known 0
Sesbania sesban - - - Not known 0
Cosmetics
 
Bixa, Bixa orelllana (lipstick bush) - - Not known 0
Loofah sponge, 208 85 /chap6/veg.html Moths and butterflies, 
Luffa cylindrica possibly bees 1 
Pesticides 
Mexican marigold, Tagetes lucida - - - Not known 0
Neem. Azadirachta indica - - - Not Known 0
Pyrethrum, Beetles, flies, also bees; more 
Chrysanthemum cinerariifolium 148 116 /chap9/pyrethrum.html potent insecticide derived when 
 flowers visited by insects 2
page 10
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
 
Rotenone, Tephrosia vogelii - 136 /chap9/tephrosia.html Not known 0
Spices 
 
Black pepper, Piper nigrum 412-13 109 /chap9/black.html Not well known 0
Vanilla, Vanilla planifolia 389-90 141 /chap9/vanilla.html Specialised bees in area 
 where vanilla is indigenous;
 largely by hand within 
 Madagascar and Africa 0
 Pesticides, continued
 Commodity Free Crane McGregor Known Studies 
 1996 & 1976 Pollinator(s) conducted 
 pages Walker from within 
 1984 iterature Africa
 pages
page 11
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
FIGURE 3: INTERVIEW BOUQUETS
Estimating the pollination efficiency of different pollinators 
requires that a flower be exposed to a single pollinator visit, 
from which the number of pollen grains can be compared to 
a flower receiving no visits. Rather than wait for a specific 
pollinator to visit a flower, it is possible to take the flower 
to the pollinator. In 
this study, interview 
bouque ts were 
used to assess 
the contribution of 
a single bee visit 
to coffee and wa-
termelon. Flowers, 
previously bagged 
to ensure that no 
po l l i na t ion had 
taken place, were 
placed in a plastic 
vial filled with water, 
that was attached 
to the end of a long 
stick. 
Assessments and Lessons Learned:
Methods and Approaches
 An initial assessment of crop dependence on pollination services in Africa was carried out in Ghana, 
Kenya and South Africa; three countries that are sufficiently different to capture the variation in 
pollination needs. 
In Kenya, field assessments were carried out in on farms near Thika town in the central 
province, and in arid regions both near Tsavo, in the south-east, and Kerio Valley and Lai-
kipia Plateau just north of the equator. The areas have savannah and upland forest veg-
etation and two rainy seasons, April-June and November. The results for Kenya are to 
be found in the chapters on Watermelon, Avocado, Acacia pods, Indigofera and Coffee. 
 
Field assessments were carried out in the southwestern and central regions of Ghana in ag-
ricultural fields in clearings in the coastal rain forests. In this region, rainfall occurs through-
out the year, but mainly during March to August, during which it is very wet. Flowering, 
however, is mostly in the dry season when pollinators are more active. The heavy, persistent 
rains along the Ghanaian coast inhibit pollinator activity during the wet season. The re-
sults are reported in the chapters on Mango, Cashew, Coconut, Groundnut and Oil Palm. 
 
In South Africa field assessments were undertaken in the south-western region (around 34º00’S 
19º00’E), among fold mountains. Here rainfall occurs in winter (June-August), and is often accompa-
nied by snow; the summers are hot and dry. The natural vegetation is cape macchia, but it is extremely 
threatened and fragmented by agriculture, invasive plants and urbanization. The flowering season for 
crops and wild plants is mostly in spring (August to November). Deciduous fruits (peaches, plums, 
apricots, pears and apples) were studied to better understand their pollination needs.
All these countries have rich pollinator 
diversity, and where the activities took 
place the conservation of this biologi-
cal diversity is a matter of concern. In 
Ghana and South Africa the work took 
place in Conservation International 
biodiversity hotspots.
Small farmers were earmarked as the 
primary beneficiaries of this survey, 
but some of the assessment was done 
on experimental or commercial farms. 
This was mainly for logistic reasons, 
because it is easier to plan surveys us-
ing systematically managed farms than 
informal systems. The crops studied are 
important to small farmer in the study 
areas.
page 12
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
Visual observation was used to determine what pollinates flowers. The flower visitors potential as 
pollinators was recorded. The categories for pollinator potential are:
(1) = almost certainly a pollinator, e.g., a regular visitor whose pollen load comes into contact with 
the stigma.
(2) = possibly pollinates on some visits, e.g., a regular visitor whose pollen load usually does not 
come into contact with stigma.
(3) = unlikely, e.g., a wasp that may carry pollen but is unlikely to visit two flowers of the same spe-
cies.
In some cases pollination efficiency was confirmed using “interview bouquets” (see Figure 3).
In Kenya and Ghana, all observations of pollinators were standardised over time and space, by 
observing flowers for 10-minute periods, and counting the number of flowers in a 1-meter square 
area. This protocol has been followed in several pollination studies in Kenya and is permitting the 
compilation of a large database on pollination observations. Where possible, similar observations 
of pollinator visitation to wild plant species growing near the crop being studied were made to as-
sess alternative forage for the pollinators, but this component of the study merits much more time 
devoted to it than was possible within this rapid assessment. 
In South Africa, where crops known to be pollinated by honeybees were assessed, fifteen pollen-col-
lecting honeybees were followed for five minutes and the number of blossoms visited by them during 
this period was counted on each of the five species of fruit trees – peaches, plums, apricots, pears 
and apples. The numbers and identities of other insect species visiting these same blossoms were 
recorded (initially at 10 minute intervals, but the dearth of such pollinators and the overwhelming 
presence of honeybees did not warrant continuation of this). This was to establish the comparative 
attractiveness of the different blossoms to honeybees and other pollinators.
Similarly, fifteen pollen-collecting honeybees were followed for five minutes as they visited the exotic 
weeds, Echium plantagineum and Raphanus raphanistrum growing in adjacent plots. This to establish 
whether the blossoms of these two weed species were more attractive to bees than fruit blossoms. 
Other pollinators, besides honeybees, were collected and recorded from these two weed species.
The indigenous perennial spring flowering plants growing mainly along the river banks but also 
interspersed between the orchards were sampled for pollinators. Ten-minute counts were also made 
of the number of the major pollinators visiting the most widespread of these species, viz. the Cape 
marigold, Arctotheca calendula. Similarly, the Australian Acacia species and the South American bug-
weed (Solanum mauritianum) were inspected for pollinators. The indigenous plants would indicate 
what pollinators were present and whether they also occurredon the deciduous tree blossoms and 
those of the exotic weed species. 
page 13
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
The presence or absence of honeybees on the exotic weeds would indicate their beneficial or detri-
mental affect in allowing the build-up of colonies or by drawing bees from the possibly less attractive 
deciduous species.
Manageability of pollinators was determined from the known life history of the pollinator. Pollina-
tion management for agriculture has been most successful with only a few organism groups, like 
honey bees and leaf-cutter bees. This is because certain nesting behaviours, those that nest above 
ground, lend themselves better to the development of pollination management technology. Africa 
has several unique pollinators (like certain small carpenter bees) that have not been tried for crop 
pollination, but have potential because they nest above ground in hollow sticks. Taxonomists and 
pollination biologists together estimated the likelihood for pollinators to be managed. 
This rapid assessment stressed the need to positively identify the floral visitors. Specimens were 
collected for identification in the course of field observation, and sent to taxonomic experts for iden-
tification down to species if possible. In addition a key to the African genera of bees was developed, 
and around fifteen field researchers and parataxonomists were trained in Kenya and Ghana on the 
use of the key. 
page 14
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
Fruit crops: Deciduous Fruit 
in South Africa 
Geoff Tribe
The rapid assessment of deciduous fruit in South 
Africa was carried out in a region that indicates 
the future of pollination services in Africa: it is 
a region that, through a combination of human 
disturbance and native ecology, is not rich in 
bees, and farmers pay for pollination services.
The south-western Cape has been intensely 
cultivated for about 350 years, when a re-
freshment station was established to service 
ships passing the Cape of Good Hope. The 
existing landscape has changed due to the 
introduction of European crops and farming 
methods, and by the introduction of many 
invasive weed species. Today the major crops 
of this region include winter wheat, grapes 
and fruit. Only marginal land, often on steep 
slopes, has not been cultivated, and much of the region has been invaded by alien plant species.
The two study sites were in the Franschhoek Valley on the farm Bien Donné, presently managed 
by the Department of Agriculture, and an apple orchard located at the Elgin Experimental Farm 
at Grabouw. The farm Bien Donné consists of peach, plum, apricot and pear orchards, with a 
small area devoted to the production of lavender (Lavandula sp.) oil. Small patches of indigenous 
and exotic vegetation occur around the periphery of the farm and along the river that bisects the 
property. On this farm were at least six natural swarms of the indigenous honeybee, Apis mellifera 
capensis Escholtz, located in oak trees, and two hives were situated near the lavender field. The El-
gin Experimental Farm is surrounded by natural montane fynbos. No honeybee colonies had been 
brought in for pollination and what honeybees there were came from wild swarms in the vicinity.
Despite the low insect biomass in the fynbos region (Schlettwein and Giliomee 1987) and the 
apparent scarcity of pollinating insects, the majority of fynbos plants (about 83% according to 
Steiner (1987)) are insect pollinated (Whitehead et al. 1987). Despite the floral diversity of the 
fynbos, the region does not appear to have a particularly rich bee fauna (Michener 1979), al-
though beetles are an important and conspicuous component of the insect pollinator fauna in 
fynbos (Johnson 1992). Butterflies are not common in fynbos probably because the sclerophyllous 
vegetation with its low nitrogen content is unsuitable for phytophagous larvae (Cottrell 1985).
Growers of apples and pears in the south-western Cape regard the presence of honeybees brought 
in for that purpose as essential for full pollination of the crop. This also ensures that each fruit is of 
a large and uniform size, and properly formed, which are essential requirements for export grade. 
FIGURE 4: PEACH TREES 
IN SOUTH AFRICA.
page 15
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
When flowers of some varieties are inadequately fertilized they develop into misshapen fruits, 
and immature fruits with relatively few seeds, which are more inclined to be shed later than 
ones with many seeds (Free 1970). Certain cultivars of pears are regarded as unattractive to 
honeybees who rapidly find more profitable forage in the vicinity of the orchard and this ne-
cessitates that a second batch of honeybee colonies are brought in midway during the blos-
som period. Abundant pollen is released but the nectar is not attractive because it has a low 
sugar content – recorded as 8-10% (Crane & Walker 1984). Most varieties of apple, pear 
and plum are self-unfruitful, whereas peach and apricot are largely self-fruitful (Free 1970). 
 
Fruit farmers pay beekeepers to place honeybee colonies within their orchards to ensure full pol-
lination. The parasitic Asian mite Varroa destructor Anderson & Trueman (Acari: Mesostigmata) which 
destroys honeybee brood was discovered in South Africa in 1997 and rapidly spread throughout 
the country (Allsopp et al. 1997). Presently the destructiveness of this mite in South Africa (Martin 
& Kryger 2002) is not nearly as severe as that reported amongst European races of honeybees in 
both Europe and the Americas. The question arises that had honeybees been totally or partially 
debilitated by this mite (or a disease in the future), are there alternative indigenous pollinators that 
could replace them?
PEACHES (PRUNUS PERSICA (L.) BATSCH.)
Peach blossoms (Figure 4) were almost 100% pollinated by the indigenous honeybee Apis mel-
lifera capensis. A few syrphid (Metasyrphus sp. 1;Ischiodon aegyptus (Wiedemann)) and black flies 
(Bibio turneri Edwards) frequented individual flowers to obtain nectar but spent most of their 
time patrolling leaves and can therefore only be regarded as occasional pollinators at best. Hon-
eybees systematically worked the flowers for the first three days after the trees began to blossom, 
and pollen collectors were especially frequent. After the first three days the pink blossoms began 
to deteriorate (after been fully pollinated) and visits by honeybees, especially pollen collectors 
declined rapidly. The nectar collectors then tended to move rapidly between trees and rows if 
no reward was forthcoming. This pattern was followed on all the deciduous fruit tree species. 
 
All peach cultivars are self-compatible and therefore do not necessarily require pollinators, but pol-
linating insects are of value even for the self-fertile cultivars (Crane and Walker 1984). Peach trees 
originate in the Near East and as such fall within the distribution range of the Western Honeybee, 
Apis mellifera. Yellow flowers are most attractive to insects. The peach flowers do not discriminate 
between floral visitors (as do for example the constricted tubular flowers of some Aloe species) and 
their pollen and nectar are readily exposed. 
TABLE 2. NUMBER OF BLOSSOMS VISITED BY 
A SINGLE HONEYBEE IN FIVE MINUTES.
Crop Date T range No. Total no. Mean no. 
 C visits blossoms blossoms 
 visited visited 
Peaches 06/08/03 13 – 21 15 223 14.8
Plums 28/08/03 9 – 17 15 697 46.4
Apricots 25/09/03 13 – 25 15 576 38.4
Pears 26/09/03 14 - 25 15 756 50.4
Apples 21/10/03 22 - 32 15 638 42.5
Rhamnas 06/08/03 13 – 21 15 515 34.3
Echium 06/10/03 14 - 23 15 508 33.8
page 16
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
Arctotheca calendula(Cape Marigold) HymenopteraSpecidae Dasyproctus sp.
 Scoliidae Campsomeris sp.
 Andrenidae Andrena sp.
 Colletidae Scrapter pallidipennsi (Cockerall)*
 Colletidae Scrapter caesariatus Eardley
 Colletidae Scrapter heterodoxus (Cockerell)*
 Halictidae Patellapis (Lamatalictus) sp.*
 Halictidae Patellapis (Zonalictus) sp. 1
 Halictidae Patellapis (Zonalictus) sp.2
 Halictidae Patellapis (Zonalictus) sp. 3 ***.
 Halictidae Halictus (Seladonia) sp
 Apidae Ceratina (Ceratina) sp.
 Diptera Bibionidae Bibio turneri Edwards*
 Empididae Sp. 1
 Empididae Sp. 2
 Bombyliidae Sp.
 Muscidae Orthelia ringiaeformis (Vileneuve)
 Syrphidae Betasyrphus sp.*
 Syrphidae Metasyrphus sp. 1
 Syrphidae Metasyrphus sp. 2*
 Syrphidae Eristalis sp.
 Anthomyiidae Delia sp.*
 Coleoptera Phalacridae Olibrus sp.
 Cleridae Sp.
 Cleridae Dolichopsia cf. cyanella Gorham
 Melyridae Pagurodactylus sp.
 Melyridae Pagurodactylus angustissimus Pic
 Tenebrionidae Eutrapela sp.*
 Melolonthinae Sp.1
 Melolonthinae Sp.2
 Melolonthinae Sp.3
 Melolonthinae Pachycnema pulverulenta Burmeister
 Anthicidae Formicomus caeruleus (Thunberg)
 Meloidea Ceroctis capensis (Linné)
 Cerambycidae Cf. Promeces sp.
 Buprestidae Acmeodera decemgutta (Thunberg)
 Nitidulidae Meligethes cf. variabilis Reitter*
 Dermestidae Attagenus nr. auratofasciatus Reitter
 Dermestidae Attagenus cf. breviusculus (Reitter)
 Chrysomelidae Sp.
 Chrysomelidae Oulema erythrodera (Lacordaire)
 Chrysomelidae Eurythenes sp.
Raphanus raphanistrum (Wild radish) Hymenoptera Eumenidae Delta sp.
 Colletidae Scrapter heterodoxis (Cockerell)*
 Halictidae Patellapis (Lamatalictus) sp.*
 Lepidoptera Pieridae Colias electo electo (Linnaeus)
 Pieridae Dixeia sp.
 Nymphalidae Cynthia (Vanessa) cardui (Linnaeus)
 Diptera Empididae Sp.1**
TABLE 3. INSECTS VISITING THE FLOWERS OF VARIOUS PLANTS AT BIEN DONNÉ (FRANSCHHOEK) AND GRABOUW 
WHICH WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY IN FLOWER WITH FIVE ORCHARD TREE SPECIES. ASTERISK * DENOTES NUMBER OF 
ADDITIONAL PLANT SPECIES FLOWERS THEY VISITED.
FLOWERING PLANT INSECT VISITOR
 ORDER FAMILY SPECIES
page 17
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
The low mean number of 14.8 peach blossoms visited in five minutes is largely because of the long 
time taken by the bees to pack the pollen on their bodies into the pollen-baskets, and to the cold 
days prior to the day records were taken (Table 2). This may also be reflected in the blooms appearing 
in very early spring when most insects have yet to start foraging.
PLUMS (PRUNUS DOMESTICA L.)
Plum blossoms were pollinated almost exclusively by honeybees. The relatively large mean number 
(46.4) of flowers visited in five minutes by honeybees (Table 2) can partly be ascribed to the clustering 
of blossoms about which the honeybees clambered without having to fly to each individual blossom. 
An insignificantly small number of syrphid flies (Ischiodon aegyptus (Wiedemann)) visited flowers to 
collect nectar at infrequent intervals.
In Europe, honeybees are the primary pollinators because plums bloom in early spring when popula-
tions of other insect species are low. A high population of pollinators is required to produce a high 
fruit yield because the pollen grain must come from another compatible flower and at the right time 
(Crane and Walker 1984).
APRICOT (PRUNUS ARMENIACA L.)
Honeybees were the almost exclusive pollinators of apricot flowers. The mean number of flowers 
visited by an individual honeybee in five minutes was 38.4, which was slightly lower than expected. 
In a study in Australia, honeybees comprised over 97% of insects on the flowers and improved fruit 
set and yield (Langridge and Goodman 1981).
PEARS (PYRUS COMMUNIS L.)
The recommended pollination strategy for the commercial pollination of pears is to bring in two 
waves of honeybee colonies because the flowers of many cultivars are reported to be unattractive 
to bees. However, the pears (early Bon Chretien cultivar) at Bien Donné proved to be so attractive
 Syrphidae Betasyrphus sp.*
 Coleoptera Cleridae Dolichopsis cf. cyanella Gorham
Zantedeschia aethiopia (Arum lily) Diptera Empididae Sp.1
 Tipulidae Sp.
 Coleoptera Melyridae Cf. Troglops
 Melyridae Pagurodactylus sp.
 Cleridae Dolichopsis cf. cyanella Gorham
 Cleridae Notostenus viridis (Thunberg)
 Tenebrionidae Eutrapela sp.
 Melolonthinae Sp.1
 Melolonthinae Peritrichia albovillosa Schein
 Meloidea Ceroctis capensis (Linné)
 Nitidulidae Meligethes cf. variabilis Reitter*
Cenia turbinate (Goose daisy) Hymenoptera Colletidae Scrapter pallidipennsi (Cockerell)*
Vicia atropurpurea Purple vetch Hymenoptera Halictidae Patellapis (Zonalictus) sp. 3***
Vicia sativa Broad-leaved purple vetch Hymenoptera Halictidae Patellapis (Zonalictus) sp.3***
 Diptera Anthomyiidae Delia sp.*
Solanum mauritianum (Bug-weed) Diptera Syrphidae Metasyrphus sp.2*
Lupinus luteus (Yellow lupin) Hymenoptera Halictidae Patellapis (Zonalictus) sp.3***
FLOWERING PLANT INSECT VISITOR
 ORDER FAMILY SPECIES
page 18
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
to honeybees that the highest mean number of 50.4 of flowers visited by a single bee in five min-
utes was recorded. Honeybees again proved to be almost exclusive pollinators of pears. The pollen 
baskets also contained the largest accumulation of pollen. It has been recorded that the nectar of 
pears is not attractive because it has a low sugar content (8-10%) but supplies abundant pollen that 
is highly attractive to honeybees (Crane and Walker 1984).
APPLES (MALUS DOMESTICA BORKH.)
At the Elgin Experimental Farm at Grabouw, it was shown that 98.2% (n=1254) of the pollinators 
were honeybees. The other 1.8% insects occurring on the blossoms consisted of syrphid flies (5), 
painted lady butterflies Cynthia (Vanessa) cardui (5), blowflies (5), solitary bees (2), a twig wilter (1), 
a lacewing (1), a wasp (1), a blackfly (1), a housefly (1), and the carpenter bee Xylocopa capitata (1). 
But this underestimates the effectiveness of the honeybees because there is no comparison between 
them and these other insects in pollination efficiency. Most visitors other than honeybees visited 
apple blossoms only erratically.
EXOTIC WEEDS
The exotic weeds adjacent to the deciduous fruit crops were surveyed to assess to what degree they 
provide alternative resources for the crop pollinators. None of the Australian Acacia species grow-
ing along the river banks and elsewhere (within 5 to 50 metres from each orchard) were visited by 
any pollinators over the observation period. The Australian stink bean Paraserianthes lophantha at-
tracted a few honeybees that foraged for pollen, but no other pollinators were recorded. Two exotic 
weed species that were highly attractive to honeybees were Echium plantagineum from Europe and 
Asia, and wild radish (ramnas) Raphanus raphanistrum from Europe. The mean number of flowers 
visited by individual pollen-collecting honeybees in five minutes was 33.8 for Echium and 34.3 for 
Raphanus (Table 2). 
These latter two exotic weeds may be important for honeybees, and also for other members of the 
pollination community: adjacent to the river where Ramnas grew amongst indigenous vegetation, 
a far greater number of insect species visited these plants although honeybees still predominated. 
These included solitary bees, xylocopids, wasps and several small beetle species.
INDIGENOUS FLOWERING PLANTS
Indigenous flowering plants in farm margins were also surveyed to assess to what degree they pro-
vide alternative resources for the crop pollinators. The most prevalent indigenous plant flowering 
during this time was the Cape Marigold Arctotheca calendula. Other species included a Senecio sp., the 
Arum lily, Zantedeschia aethiopia, and yellow sorrel, Oxalis pes-caprae. Few of these indigenous plants 
were attractive to honeybees,although many- such as Cape marigold- were important resources for 
solitary bees and syrphid flies, among other pollinators. 
CONCLUSIONS
All five species of deciduous fruit trees were thoroughly pollinated almost exclusively by honeybees, 
which comprised over 98% of all pollinators recorded on these trees. This is even an underestimation 
of the effectiveness of the honeybees because the other insects recorded on the blossoms, such as 
the odd Xylocopa caffra (Linnaeus), Xylocopa capitata Smith or solitary bee, 
page 19
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
although effective as pollinators, visited only a few blossoms and could in no way match the effi-
ciency of the honeybees. The few flies (syrphids and Muscidae, Orthellia ringiaeformis (Villeneuve)), 
and beetles observed on the blossoms were only occasional visitors and inefficient pollinators and 
collected nectar usually without touching the anthers of the blossom.
In the course of gathering these observations, it was noted that both nectar and pollen was collected 
from all the deciduous fruit species except for apples where 98.2% of the foragers were collecting 
nectar only. This is confirmed by the fact that only honeybee colonies placed on apples for pollination 
purposes produce any honey (Mostert, pers comm.). The Bon Chretien pear trees were especially 
attractive as suppliers of pollen and the pollen-baskets of the honeybees were packed high with the 
greyish pollen. The pollen produced by the apples was not attractive to the honeybees.
Honeybees visited alternative floral resources at a lower rate than they visited the fruit species (ex-
cept for peach). Nonetheless they clearly obtained floral resources from Echium and Ramnas, and 
also serve as pollinators at least of the Echium where they emerge from flowers coated in a film of 
blue pollen.
Plants originating in Europe and Asia, where Apis mellifera naturally occurs, did have a beneficial affect 
on both the Cape honeybee and several indigenous solitary bee species and produced both nectar 
and pollen. Not only do honeybees find Echium and Ramnas highly attractive, but so do indigenous 
bees which also frequent Vicia spp. 
With the recent expansion of the fruit growing area in South Africa, there is presently a shortage 
of pollination units available for deciduous fruit. Part of the problem lies in the systematic removal 
of Eucalyptus trees, which were classified as invader species but were the most important source of 
nectar and pollen to tide colonies over the summer dearth period. So plant species that contribute 
to the well being of honeybee colonies are beneficial. There was no indication that honeybees were 
enticed away from the fruit blossoms by the exotic weeds, and the indigenous solitary bees also 
benefited by the presence of these floral resources.
Honeybees are indispensable as pollinators of deciduous fruit in the south-western Cape and should 
they be afflicted by a debilitating disease or other parasites, the export fruit industry will be severely 
affected. Continued efforts to document alternative pollinators, and alternative floral resources for 
honeybees and other potentially important pollinators, will be useful.
page 20
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
Kenya is within the probable area of domestication of watermelon (Citrullus lanatus), yet no pol-
lination work on the plant has previously been carried out in the region. One of the members of 
the African Pollinator Initiative, Grace Njoroge, is pursing a PhD on the topic of watermelon pol-
lination in the region of Yatta. The majority of her study has focused on the behaviour and patterns 
of honeybee pollination of watermelon, as these are by far the predominant visitors. But through 
the support of the FAO Rapid Assessment project, we were able to supplement her field observa-
tions with several days of deliberate, focused observations on alternative pollinators of watermelon. 
 
The Yatta Plateau of Kenya, to the east and below the important agricultural town of Thika, is intensely 
farmed by smallholders and some large estates. The region, though fairly dry, is dissected by rivers 
and also fortunate to have a major engineering work, the Yatta Furrow, running near the top of the 
ridge between two valleys, diverting water from the Thika river to farms along the plateau. Although 
the region is arid, the furrow permits irrigation of crops such as coffee and watermelon.
On both of the farms in Yatta region where informa-
tion was collected on pollination, honeybees were 
by far the most numerous and thus important as 
pollinators for watermelon. Yet, the national youth 
service farm at Yatta where we observed watermelon 
pollination, does not keep bees. Thus farmers in the 
region rely on wild bee colonies, of which several 
can be seen in riparian zones on farms in this region. 
Unfortunately, the National Youth Farm has em-
ployed its many young workers to clear fields to the 
river, and have greatly reduced the riparian zones. 
 
Female watermelon flowers are much less abun-
dant than male flowers (Figure 6), and also appear 
to be less visited by honeybees. The team observing 
watermelon for non- Apis visitors thus separated 
observations of male and female flowers to see if 
this held true with other flower visitors. As with 
the other investigations within Kenya, watermelon 
flowers were observed in the field over 10-minute 
intervals of time, at all times of the day, and in this 
case over six days. The non-honeybee visitors 
to watermelon flowers included those in table 4. 
 
Female flowers were considerably less frequently 
visited by both non- Apis bees and flies, as well as 
by honeybees (Figure 5). 
FIGURE 5: NON-APIS VISITATION 
PATTERNS TO WATERMELON, YATTA
FIGURE 6: MALE FLOWERS, 
WATERMELON
Watermelon in Kenya
Grace Njoroge, Laban Njoroge, and Barbara Gemmill-Herren
page 21
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
However, if we consider the ratio of male to female flowers (13:1), then it is evident that particularly 
in the case of non-Apis bees, the visitors are actually preferring and seeking out the female flowers. 
Interestingly, at least two of the non-honeybee bee pollinators in the watermelon field were found 
nesting in the soil of the field. If nesting habits can be observed more closely, land management 
practices could be prescribed to best conserve these nests on-farm.
Indigenous bees pollinating watermelon at Yatta, in Kenya- aside from honeybees - show appropri-
ate pollination behaviour, and evidently are able to make use of conditions on-farm to nest. While 
soil-nesting bees may be among the hardest to manage, the fact that they are already able to nest 
within a field suggests that management procedures to ensure their survival could be developed.
TABLE 4. VISITORS TO WATERMELON FLOWERS 
� � � �
Order Family Subfamily Genus Species
(a) Bees
Hymenoptera Halictidae � Lasioglossum sp.A
Hymenoptera Halictidae � Lasioglossum sp.B
Hymenoptera Halictidae � Lipotriches sp.
Hymenoptera Apidae � Apis melifera
(b) Other visitors � � � �
Diptera Syrphidae Syrphinae Allobaccha sp.
Diptera Syrphidae Syrphinae Allograpta nasuta
Diptera Syrphidae Syrphinae Betasryphus adligatus
Diptera Calliphoridae Chrysomyinae chrysomya chloropyga
Diptera Calliphoridae Chrysomyinae chrysomya sp.
Diptera Calliphoridae Calliphorinae Hemipyrellia sp.
page 22
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
Mango in Ghana
Peter Kwapong
Mango (Mangifera indica L.) is one of the most important fruit crops world wide. The major pro-
ducing areas of Mango include: United States of America (Florida), Mexico, Central America, West 
Indes (Caribbean Islands), South America (Brazil), Africa (Tanzania, Zaire), Arabian Peninsula, Asia 
(India, Pakistan, Philippines, Indochina and Indonesia).There are about 150 varieties of mango 
grown world wide. The plant is very important for its high economic value and as foodstuff for the 
inhabitants of the tropics. The fruits of mango are eaten fresh or canned. They are used to make 
fruit drinks. The unripe fruit is used in pickles. The stem bark is boiled with shea-butter and used 
to treat bronchial disorders in children. In Ghana, both local and improved varieties of mango are 
grown for local use and for export.
Mangos belong to the family Anacardiaceae. It is a large evergreen tree which can live for over 100 
years. Mangoes grow best at altitudes below 1,500 metres, rainfall of 1.500 mm per year, and with 
very little variation in day and night temperatures.
Mango flowers (Figure 7) occur in a conical panicle up to 45 cm long depending on the variety and 
environmental conditions during its development. The panicle bears 500 – 600 flowers. Both bisexual 
and male flowers are present on the same panicle. However, their proportions depend on the variety 
and temperature during its development. The size of both male and hermaphrodite flowers varies 
from 6-8 mm in diameter. They are subsessile 
and have a sweet smell. 
Mango produces relatively small amount of 
pollen per flower. The mango (hermaphroditic) 
flower is such that any organism that lands on 
the flower is likely to effectuate pollination. The 
flower opens early in the morning. Maximum 
pollen shedding is from about 8 am to noon. The 
flowers secrete nectar in considerable quantities. 
This attracts a large number of insects.
FIGURE 7: INFLORESCENCE AND IMMATURE 
FRUITS OF MANGOES
page 23
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
Sites selected for research into the pollination of mango include: Dodowa, a major mango growing 
area and Cape Coast. These locations are in the Greater Accra and Central Regions respectively.
About 29 species of dipteran flies were collected. These seem to be the main pollinators even though 
bees and wasps were also found on the flowers. Apart from honeybees, 4 other bee species and 7 
species of wasps were also collected from the flowers. Three species of chrysomelid beetles, and some 
Lepidoptera were also collected. No alternative host flowering plants were found around since the 
vegetation was mainly grass.
TABLE 5. FLORAL VISITORS TO MANGO, GHANA.
Species observed Score Notes 
Apis melifera (honey bee) 1 Visited early from 7.30 am and took over the 
 pollination of mango
Halictidae (Pseudalpis sp) 1 Collected on flowers
Dactyrarina sp (Stingless bee) 1 Collected on flowers
Wasps (9) 1-2 Collecting nectar
Syrphidae (2) 1-2 Hovering and occasionally landing on 
 flowers
Calliphoridae 1-2 Walking over flowers
Muscidae (4) 1-2 Walking over flowers
Coleoptera 1-2 Were many on flowers in the evening from
(brown soft bodied) 5.00pm
Arctiidae,,Ctenuchinae, 
Euchromia sp (Moth) 1-2 Flying over trees with occasional landing on 
 flowers
Chrysomelidae (2) 2-3 Feeding on plant material
Dolichopodidae 3 Walking over flowers
Ichneumonidae (1) 3 Parasitoid, predating on other insects
page 24
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
FIGURE 10: HERSE CONVOLVULI (WITH TONGUE EXTENDED) 
––ONE OF THE HAWKMOTHS POLLINATING PAPAYA 
FIGURE 8: MALE FLOWER OF PAPAYA
FIGURE 9: FEMALE FLOWER OF PAPAYA
Papaya in Kenya
Dino Martins
Papaya (Carica papaya), also known as paw-
paw, is a widespread fruit crop throughout 
Kenya where enough water is available for 
it to be cultivated. It is a perennial tree crop, 
dioecious, i.e., separate male and female 
flowers, and therefore requires a pollinator 
in order to set fruit. In tropical and sub-
tropical climates, fruit set occurs throughout 
the year. Papaya is sold and eaten locally 
as a fresh fruit, with much demand from 
the numerous hotels, local grocery stores 
and the town markets. Papaya is dried and 
exported as part of a dried fruit mixture. The 
‘milk’- a latex produced by the unripe fruit 
is harvested and used in the production of 
papain, an enzyme that acts on protein. 
Papain is used in the brewing industry, 
canned meats and medicinally. Coastal 
peoples also use the latex from unripe fruit 
to ease the pain and remove the spines and 
stinging cells of sea-urchins and jellyfish. 
The seeds are dried and exported to health 
food stores.
In some areas, the leaves are used to wrap 
meat, which is then roasted. This is said 
to act as a tenderiser and improve flavour. 
Unripe fruits are also boiled and eaten as 
a vegetable by some communities. Sale of 
fresh papaya across Kenya provides some 
regular income for farmers. Single fruits 
are sold for between 20-100 Kshs ($ 0.26- 
1.3), depending on the location and local 
abundance or availability of fruit. Most 
small-holder farms produce at least fifty 
individual saleable fruits a season.
Papaya pollination observations (Table 6) 
were made in multiple sites including the 
following: Kerio Valley, Machakos, Kitisuru 
(Nairobi), Kitengela and Mosoriot (Eldo-
ret). 
page 25
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
The Kerio Valley had the largest stands of trees, with farms near rivers supporting hundreds of trees 
and supplying fruit to traders in lorries. Fruits are transported to Nairobi and other towns
The Papaya plant is a relatively fast-growing species. It reaches a height of several metres. Papaya 
requires pollination to set fruit. There are separate male and female flowers (Figures 8 and 9), as a 
rule, on separate trees. Occasionally hemaphrodite trees are found. The male flowers on ‘male’ trees 
are smaller but are produced in larger numbers than female flowers. 
TABLE 6. FLORAL VISITORS TO PAPAYA, KENYA
Species observed Notes/observations/sites where present
Diptera
Calliphoridae Occasional diurnal visitors to female flowers. 
 Not pollinating. (All sites studied).
Tephritidae: Didacus sp. Common diurnal visitor to female flowers. 
 Not pollinating. May be laying eggs in young 
 fruit. (Kitisuru and Kerio valley)
Hymenoptera
Apidae:Apis mellifera Occasional visitor to male flowers. Not 
 pollinating. (Kerio valley)
Lepidoptera
Hesperiidae:Ceoliades sp. Occasional diurnal visitor to both male and 
 female flowers. Some pollen transport. 
 Pollinator. (Kerio valley)
Sphingidae: Hippotion celerio Abundant floral visitor. Seen at both male 
 and female trees. Hovers while feeding. 
 Pollinator (Kerio valley, Machakos and 
 Kitengela)
Sphingidae: Herse convolvuli Abundant floral visitor. Seen at both male 
 and female trees. Hovers while 
 feeding. Pollinator (Mosoriot and Kitengela)
Sphingidae: Macroglossum trochilus Abundant floral visitor. Seen at both male 
 and female trees. Hovers while 
 feeding. Diurnal. Pollinator (Mosoriot)
Sphingidae:Daphnis nerii Abundant floral visitor. Seen at both male 
 and female trees. Hovers while feeding. 
 Pollinator (Mosoriot)
Sphingidae:Nephele comma Abundant floral visitor. Seen at both male 
 and female trees. Hovers while feeding. 
 Pollinator (Machakos)
Noctuidae: Sphingomorpha chlorea Occasional floral visitor. Hovers 
 and alights on flowers. Pollinator (?) 
 (Kitengela and Kitisuru)
page 26
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
They are produced in small bunches on short panicles originating from the trunk in-between the 
leaf-bases. Female flowers occur single at the base of leaves appressed to the trunk. Both flowers 
offer nectar rewards to pollinators.
Given the dioecious nature of the trees, both male and female flowers were observed during this 
pollination assessment study. Floral production of fragrance and floral visitor activity is highest 
after dusk, and before eight p.m. Flowerswere watched for between 30 minutes to an hour at each 
site studied (generally after sunset). Initial observations indicated little pollinator activity during the 
day. Diurnal visitors included fruit flies and calliphorid flies (female flowers). Occasional honeybees 
visit (male flowers) and flower moths visit (female flowers). One large species of skipper butterflies 
(Hesperiidae), were observed visiting during the day at one location. They visited both male and 
female flowers. This is important for transfer of pollen.
The pollination of the dioecious flowers is primarily carried out by crepuscular/nocturnal moths 
(Sphingidae). These moths, better known as hawkmoths or sphinxmoths, are fast-flying, large and 
highly mobile insects (Figure 10). This makes them extremely efficient pollinators. Preliminary ob-
servations on Kenyan farms show that different moth species are responsible for pollination across 
different sites. Pollination happens primarily after dusk, within an hour or so. This is a fairly narrow 
window and only the hawkmoths visit both male and female flowers at this time, and are able to 
cover the distances between trees and plantations quickly.
page 27
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
Avocado in Kiambu, Central Kenya
Wanja Kinuthia and Laban Njoroge
The avocado tree originated in Central America, where it co-evolved with native pollinators. Effec-
tive pollinators, whether co-evolved or not must be adapted to visit both male and female flower 
stages, coming in contact with the dehisced anthers and receptive stigma at the same pollen col-
lection zones. Small and medium flying insects (3-8 mm in length) are especially apt to efficiently 
collect avocado nectar. 
Avocado is currently grown in most countries in the world. According to Wysoki et al. (1997), the main 
avocado producing countries in Africa are South Africa, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon, 
Kenya, Egypt and the Canary Islands. Kenya is among the top exporting countries in Africa mainly 
to France, Germany and United Kingdom (Collin, Pers. comm.)
The avocado flower is small and has both male and female reproductive organs. The flowers are 
carried on terminal panicles. Each panicle carries a few hundred flowers. All cultivars have similar 
flower structures though they may differ slightly in flower size.
An individual avocado flower goes through two stages. When it opens in stage I, the pistil is receptive, 
and pollination and fertilization can occur. The flower closes after stage I and opens again in stage 
II when the anthers dehisce. Avocado cultivars fit into two general types according to the time of 
day their flowers are in different stages. The flowers of type A cultivar are in stage I in the morning 
of the first day and stage II in the afternoon of the following day, so that the flower’s opening cycle 
lasts about 36 hours. Type B cultivar are in stage I in the afternoon of the first day and stage II in the 
morning of the following day. The flower opening cycle lasts about 20 hours (Free 1993). A farmer 
with type A and B is ideal so that, in the morning, type A are pollinated with pollen from type B trees 
and in the afternoon, type B would receive pollen from type A. 
Self-pollination is possible because flowering dichogamy is rarely absolute: opening and closing of 
flowers of the same tree is not necessarily perfectly synchronized. Therefore, early opening flow-
ers may overlap with late opening ones (Free 1993). Even when self-pollination within a tree is 
possible, insects are needed to transfer the pollen between flowers. The three types of pollination: 
cross, close and self-pollination occurs in avocado. Robbertse et al. (1996) were able to demonstrate 
a clear advantage of cross over self-pollination.
A pollination survey was conducted on six trees of “Hass” and “Fuerte” varieties, in Kiambu District 
Central Province. This site was chosen because the plants had flowers at eye-level for ease of ob-
servation (Table 7). 
The honeybee, Apis mellifera L. was clearly the most prolific visitor on avocado flowers, visiting in 
much larger numbers than other visitors. Honeybees appeared in the morning between 6:00 to 10:00 
and never to return again until the following day. There were various species of flies observed visiting 
the flowers. Flower beetles and ants were also observed (Table 7). Although ants were permanently 
on the flowers, they appeared less effective as pollinators as they rarely came into contact with the 
anthers and stigma of the flower. They were also observed to deter
page 28
CROPS, BROWSE AND POLLINATORS IN AFRICA:
other would-be effective pollinators from visiting the flowers due to their intimidating large num-
bers. The ants also deplete the nectar from flowers, making other visitors spend very little time on 
flowers. Farmers often band their Avocado trees with appropriate products to keep the ants away. 
The variety of species observed on the avocado flowers in Gachie, Kiambu are shown on Table 7. 
However, the pollination efficiency for each species was not carried out in this study.
Though avocado is an exotic tropical fruit to Kenya, its reproduction has adapted well to the local 
pollinators as shown in this study. The exposed flower with large amount of nectar and pollen at-
tracts a large number of visitors. The area of study is densely populated, where most farms are less 
than four acres. The farmers keep cattle in near to zero-grazing level, and are averse to bee keep-
ing according to a survey reported elsewhere in this study. The only other flowering plants were 
the Lantana sp. hedge surrounding the farm. In spite of this, the honeybees A. mellifera visited the 
flowers abundantly followed by several genera of Diptera. Ants, flower beetles and wasps were 
also observed. The study should be repeated and the sampling period extended to cover the entire 
flowering period. It would be interesting to compare Kiambu, Murang’a and Nyeri since the later 
two have less degraded environment. Determination of the frequency of other indigenous bees 
would compliment studies done elsewhere.
TABLE 7. FLORAL VISITORS TO AVOCADO IN GACHIE VILLAGE, KIAMBU DISTRICT, KENYA
ORDER FAMILY SUBFAMILY GENUS SPECIES
Diptera Calliphoridae Calliphorinae Lucilia sp.
Diptera Sarcophagidae Miltogramminae Hoplacephala tesselata
Diptera Calliphoridae Chrysomyinae Chrysomya chloropyga
Diptera Sarcophagidae Sarcophaginae Sarcophaga inaequalis
Diptera Calliphoridae Calliphorinae Hemigymnochaete varia
Diptera Calliphoridae Rhiniinae Rhyncomya stannocuprea
Diptera Calliphoridae Rhiniinae Rhinia sp.
Diptera Anthomyiidae - Anthomyia sp
Diptera Muscidae Muscinae Musca sp
Diptera Muscidae Muscinae Musca sp
Diptera Muscidae Muscinae Musca sp
Diptera Muscidae Phaoniinae Atherigona sp
Diptera Muscidae Coenosiinae Anaphalantus sp.
Diptera Syrphidae Syrphinae Allobaccha sp
Diptera Syrphidae Syrphinae Paragus sp
Diptera Agromyzidae - Melanagromyza sp.
Hymenoptera Apidae Apinae Apis mellifera
Hymenoptera Braconidae Microgasterinae Apanteles sp.
Hymenoptera Formicidae Formicinae Acantholepis sp
page 29
AN INITIAL STOCK-TAKING
NUT CROPS
Cashew in Ghana
Peter Kwapong
Cashew (Anacardium occidentale L) is a hardy, drought-resistant tropical or subtropical tree. In the 
neotropical zone, it grows from Mexico to Peru and Brazil, including Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and parts 
of the southern tip of Florida. Worldwide India is the leading producer: other producing countries 
include Mozambique and Tanzania (Mutter and Bigger 1961, Purseglove, 1968).
Even though wild cashew has been growing in various part of Ghana for over fifty years now mainly 
for its apple, it is increasingly being cultivated commercially in several areas around